I fail to see any ambiguity in this letter to warrant the claim that the SASB is not authorized in the same way that the OM is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:57, August 9, 2008 (UTC)--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:57, August 9, 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see any ambiguity in this letter to warrant the claim that the SASB is not authorized in the same way that the OM is. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:57, August 9, 2008 (UTC)--[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:57, August 9, 2008 (UTC)

+

+

== Misreading "exclusive use" ==

+

+

Willibrord and Pistevo seem to misunderstand the meaning of the English sentence in Metropolitan PHILIP's letter of authorization of the OM" "These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." That says that these liturgies are only used by the Antiochian Archdiocese. If one reads it as Willibrord does, then the sentence says that only the OM texts are used in the Antiochian '''Archdiocese''' (not the AWRV), which is patently false, as most of their parishes use the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and Liturgy of St Basil. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:55, August 11, 2008 (UTC)

== Misreading "exclusive use" ==

== Misreading "exclusive use" ==

Willibrord and Pistevo seem to misunderstand the meaning of the English sentence in Metropolitan PHILIP's letter of authorization of the OM" "These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." That says that these liturgies are only used by the Antiochian Archdiocese. If one reads it as Willibrord does, then the sentence says that only the OM texts are used in the Antiochian '''Archdiocese''' (not the AWRV), which is patently false, as most of their parishes use the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and Liturgy of St Basil. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:55, August 11, 2008 (UTC)

Willibrord and Pistevo seem to misunderstand the meaning of the English sentence in Metropolitan PHILIP's letter of authorization of the OM" "These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." That says that these liturgies are only used by the Antiochian Archdiocese. If one reads it as Willibrord does, then the sentence says that only the OM texts are used in the Antiochian '''Archdiocese''' (not the AWRV), which is patently false, as most of their parishes use the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and Liturgy of St Basil. --[[User:Fr Lev|Fr Lev]] 22:55, August 11, 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:55, August 11, 2008

Contents

Adjudication

At 80kb, I'm fairly sure that this is the single longest Talk page on OW, probably even including those with archivals - so big that it needed to pages to archive it. It's the kind of thing that I instinctively congratulate, purely on the basis of perseverance - all 80,000 characters and six months of it. That said, this does need to stop.

So, my adjudication on the matter - the Observations aren't binding (they're observations), so it is thoroughly irrelevant whether they were followed to the letter (indeed, 'to the letter' gives quite a bit of scope to the diocesan). This is something that both 'sides' can accept, since one advanced this idea to begin with and the other highlighted that the diocesan needed to implement them properly. The way the article currently is (and I did edit it in the last couple of days) reflects this.

Secondly, I'm not convinced that the SASB is authorised in the same way as the OM is authorised - the definite and indefinite articles clearly have an important part to play in the English language, and only the latter has the definite article.

Regarding citations, the OM/SASB issue should be settled with a citation (e.g. Andersen, B., (2006). Lengthy Thesis: Title with Much Capitalisation that Rivals The Thesis' Word Count. Crestwood, New York: Publisher), but I strongly encourage that the critical part of this thesis be put online. The critical part about this thesis is what the Vicar-General says - if there's only one authorised text according to him, then that's it - if that wasn't the case, then in the same way that the Archbishop has full authority to authorise texts, he also has full authority to un-deputise people to speak on his behalf. At a minimum, all bibliographical details need to be given. In addition, whether there is a conflict of interest regarding the thesis is not an issue, for the simple reason that it was submitted to an impartial marker. One would not claim a conflict of interest if someone said 'I'm innocent' after the court case was thrown out. On another note, however, Occidentalis cannot be used as a source, for the simple reason that it is a "blog [that] is open to invited readers only".

In short, I hold that the article, as it stands, is correct. I'm archiving the rest of the page. For any further complaints about the article, click on my complaints link feel free to state this on this page or find another sysop. — by Pιsτévοtalkcomplaints at 23:01, August 8, 2008 (UTC)

Sorry-- I didn't notice that this was a final edit. I will be quiet on this one, wasn't trying to wake the dead or anything. removing previous comment.--JosephSuaiden 02:32, August 9, 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is a talk page, so if there is something that needs saying, it should be said. The above was simply my adjudication on the matter. — by Pιsτévοtalkcomplaints at 12:35, August 10, 2008 (UTC)

SASB Authorized

The main article has a link to a download of the SASB. Here is the letter from Metropolitan PHILIP:

"1996

The First Edition of the St. Andrew Service Book was approved for use by the
Western Rite Congregations of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian
Archdiocese of North America in 1989. This, the Second Edition, improved in
format and expanded in content, will be welcomed by the clergy and laity of
our archdiocese who worship in a tradition as ancient as the Eastern.
We take this opportunity to commend and sincerely thank Archpriest
Michael Keiser, the original compiler of the service book, as well as the Board
of the Orthodox Christian Press, Archimandrite Michael Trigg, Fr. John
Downing, and especially Mr. Karl Steinhoff, for their many hours of dedicated
labor in preparing the revised edition.
We pray that the attentive use of these authorized liturgies and other rites
and ceremonies by the Western rite clergy and laity of our beloved
Archdiocese will be the cause of a spiritual and liturgical renewal within our
church in North America.
+ Metropolitan PHILIP
Primate
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese
of North America
by the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese
of North America"

I fail to see any ambiguity in this letter to warrant the claim that the SASB is not authorized in the same way that the OM is. --Fr Lev 22:57, August 9, 2008 (UTC)--Fr Lev 22:57, August 9, 2008 (UTC)

Misreading "exclusive use"

Willibrord and Pistevo seem to misunderstand the meaning of the English sentence in Metropolitan PHILIP's letter of authorization of the OM" "These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." That says that these liturgies are only used by the Antiochian Archdiocese. If one reads it as Willibrord does, then the sentence says that only the OM texts are used in the Antiochian Archdiocese (not the AWRV), which is patently false, as most of their parishes use the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and Liturgy of St Basil. --Fr Lev 22:55, August 11, 2008 (UTC)

Misreading "exclusive use"

Willibrord and Pistevo seem to misunderstand the meaning of the English sentence in Metropolitan PHILIP's letter of authorization of the OM" "These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." That says that these liturgies are only used by the Antiochian Archdiocese. If one reads it as Willibrord does, then the sentence says that only the OM texts are used in the Antiochian Archdiocese (not the AWRV), which is patently false, as most of their parishes use the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom and Liturgy of St Basil. --Fr Lev 22:55, August 11, 2008 (UTC)